Regardless of where you stand on the the habits of mass retailers ripping off designers, you have to admit that it’s pretty fucked up for Topshop to take a designer they sponsor – a championed, beloved, we might even say genius designer – and copy his clothes.
Especially when you consider the stake Sir Philip Green has in Christopher Kane. His store doesn’t just fund Kane’s runway shows, provide a venue and almost bottomless financial backing, they’ve also recruited the Scottish designer to create his own collection for Topshop.
Which is, in fact, the best way to offer his talent to the customer who appreciates it, but can’t drop five grand on a cocktail dress.
Obviously, Topshop lacks the time and money to make the dress as detailed as Kane’s SS09 collection. But if your eyes are able to discern that the dress on the left is, indeed, a color called lavender, there is no way you can deny that it desperately wants to mirror the look on the right.
And, well, you know how that makes us feel.
Tags: Christopher Kane, Sir Philip Green, TopShop
Most Popular Stories
Comments [38]
Popular Stories
The 10 Best YouTube Hair Tutorials
The 10 Best YouTube Makeup Tutorials 
Fashion's Most Stylish Guys Give Mark Zuckerberg an (Almost!) Hoodie-Free Makeover for Facebook's IPO
Style and Substance: 10 Ladies Who Have Proven You Can Have Both
10 Beauty Boards You Should Be Following on Pinterest
Ohhh that’s just wrong and the colour of the Topshop one is hideous!
With your fingers?
if Topshop sponsors Christopher Kane, what would the chances be that this piece is an agreed-upon-copy-cat?
p.s. what’s up with “cocktail” dresses that look as if they are meant to be worn by a 5 year old?
The original is freaking amazing.
I understand the concept of intellectual property, and it completely applies to lucid replicas of trademarked pieces (LV monogram bag, etc), but this blog is fostering an unrealistic perspective on fashion and it’s quite disheartening. We get it loves; you can all spot the knock off. Congratulations. It is clear to you and every other fashion aficionado. Guess what? In recognizing this we’ve all just given Christopher Kane his artistic props. His business will not suffer because of a Topshop dress. Those who can afford CKane will buy CKane. Designers should be flattered when their work is emotive enough to resonate with an audience. It signifies cultural relevance and, honestly, what is more coveted in this fickle industry? This site is named “Fashionista,” not “Hauteur,” so please let those who want a piece of the dream wear their clothes with pride.
This just brings knock-offs to a whole new low…
Most commenters do not like these articles, so maybe have them less often instead of making it one of the four articles you write everyday.
How do you know Kane didn’t knock off Topshop? Perhaps team Topshop had that design in their studios and Kane was strolling though, saw the design, and then produced it for his runway. Access could be argued by both side.
I have a huge problem with calling these posts “Adventures in Copyright,” because as we all know or should know by now clothing cannot be copyrighted.
This industry has always existed had a huge element of it involving reinterpreting and dumbing down designer goods for the masses. Why people are all of sudden so insulted by this practice? What designer has not borrowed from another designer?
jac – you’ve made your thoughts on fashionista pretty clear. why don’t you go read one of the other bajillion fashion blogs out there?
so true number #7. And to #5- well put, i couldn’t agree with you more. I understand the issue surrounding copyright infringement of pieces that hover around the same price point, that is not cool and over floods the market, ultimately destroying designer profit, BUT, as #5 says, there is no real harm (besides the ugliness of the topshop creation)being done to CKane’s ability to sell. the people who by RTW are usually not the people buying topshop, the two worlds are separate and not interdependent. Secondly, isn’t everything ultimately a copyright infringement because fashion is an account of history and culture and those things repeat themselves, they evolve, but they repeat. you could apply your policing to all designs but then again Athena isn’t around to sue Karl for ripping off her calf-high gladiators…
I really don’t feel that something like this is a true copy. I have a problem when companies make an exact replica of a designer’s garment but something like this?…. It lacks the same details and the fabric is hideous. Specifically made for the people who can’t afford a Christopher Kane. Fashion is pretty much copies anyway. Get over this!!! And stop making every similarity you see a big deal.
I look good in lavender. Think I’m going to buy the topshop dress. Thanks for advertising. xx
i agree with number 4 i want that.
and yeah, it’s clearly a copy, but it’s so ug that it’s not even worth getting upset about.
because I LIKE/LIKED the site and I don’t want to see it go downhill and pander to get people to come/comment. i’m not being bitchy for the sake of bitchy, the sight has some good articles once in awhile and I’d love to see more of them. and am I wrong? go read the comments on soem of the other more ridiculous copy posts. people don’t like it. if you have a problem with my comments, dont comment. this was a very specific complaint/suggestion, so no, I don’t think that was clear the other time I posted.
because I like/liked the site and don’t want to see it continue to go downhill by pandering to get angry commenters. If you don’t like my comments, why don’t you respond to one of the other comments on the site? Besides, my complaint/suggestion was very specific, so no, I don’t think my general comments about not liking the blog’s direction at the moment cover it.
I think that people never really see the point trying to get across here and that is why they get so upset. I’m pretty sure that nowhere does fashoinista say that it is bad to wear an inspired garment that makes you feel like you are getting a piece of a designer trend. In this particualr case they are not even saying it is a direct copy, the focus is on the irony in the fact that Christopher Kane’s on financial backers and collaborators are perhaps taking too much influence from the designer for their own financial gain. I doubt that if this dress was made by anyone but topshop it wouldn’t even illicit a Adventures in Copyright post. People need to realize that even the name “Adventures in Copyright” is tongue in cheek because like #8 said there is no copyright in fashion. But seriuosly people need to also realize this is a fashion blog that supports, advocates, and writes in regards to high end designers and is not marketed towards the kind of people that have most of their wardrobe from f21 or likewise, and if you can’t get over that, I fully agree with #9 and go read another fashion blog. These should be for enjoyment and healthy debate, not the kind of immature comments that so often are posted.
I’d say this is a fairly healthy debate, #16, and one that does not need addition of your “well they can just get over it and read another blog” approach. This is a substantial issue and all perspectives are valid. Fashion extends from Madison to middle America. It would be foolish and distasteful for the fashionistas to dismiss the opinions of their readers, so you need not do it for them.
To me, i see it being more chloe with the scallops that trimmed all of the clothes for spring. Proof that this is all pointless.
i aggree with the other readers saying that they do not love these types of posts.
I especially disagree with this post, as the Topshop dress is more inspired by the Christopher Kane dress than a direct copy, and it is one of the key characteristics of the high street that they are inspired by designers.
#16 i completely agree. this site recieves negative comments on most stories and whilst constructive criticism is good..why all the bitchyness?
and this rip-off is disgusting, tophop as a supposed high-street fashion leader, could have put their own twist on the dress without going to such a low…and lilac does not count.
I’m an avid reader of your site and maybe I just skim right past the vulgarity normally, but the statement: “you have to admit that it‚Äôs pretty fucked up” just hit me! I couldn’t even read farther. Fashionista, wash your mouth out with soap! Why the need to sound so trashy?
Did I miss something? When did Christopher Kane copyright the halfcircle?
Well, I really enjoy this series, only I don’t usually comment about it (negatively).
I find it particularly interesting as an international reader (Sydney): I am learning the high / low fashion shopping landscape of NY and other major markets.
I never really weigh in on these, since as a Humanities grad student fashion copies don’t affect me ideologically or financially… These days I’m lucky if I have the option to buy second-hand *Topshop*. But the Kane dress is just about the prettiest piece of couture I’ve ever seen. Him getting ripped off even managed to break my several-sizes-too-small grinch heart. You win, Fashionista, copies are wrong.
I’m pretty sure another commenter has mentioned this but… if Topshop has recruited CK him for their line, chances are good he’s very aware of this *copy*.
In fashion, any and all exposure is good. He’s hitting two markets at once; the ones who can afford the his higher priced line, and those who are loyal to Topshop.
From a business standpoint, it’s win-win (also got a mention and started a dialogue on a popular fashion blog).
i agree with 21. Please no f-words fashionista.
I think Christopher Kane ripped this one off an old apron my grammy used to have. Where are the copyright cops now?
I don’t have an issue with these posts in theory, but I wish they would stick to true copies, i.e. the Steve Madden Balenciagas, some of the very direct F21 disasters, etc. Some of these posts showcasing pieces that seem more “inspired by” than “copies of” end up just being good advertising for cute pieces to me, and are not funny or especially interesting.
I know a lot of people complain about these posts… Here’s a thought, Fashionista – why not do what “The Moment” does and showcase more low price pieces so people would have less to say about the supposedly snarky, snotty tone of the blog. (Not saying I agree, but that complaint is lodged all over the place.)
I think the student designer could possibly be inspired by Burberry..
Their Prorsum teflon coated jacket looks very similar
I was personally shocked to learn about this – not because I live under a rock and have no idea that copyright ripoffs occur – but simply for the fact that Topshop has had collections made by Christopher Kane and to see this dress makes me sick to my stomach. Most of Kane’s work cannot be copied and taken for some one else’s – that’s the genius behind his collections.
I love you and your F word Britt ♥
Yeah, you language sticklers on here are real pain in the ass. Who cares about the f-word? Not me. If you’re going to comment and complain, please make it something credible.
I’m going to St. Marks today to get austin and etoilee a
“fuck you you fucking fuck!” t-shirt.
http://img.printfection.com/1/2619/667178/4smAV.jpg
you can not copyright anything in fashion or any piece of clothing at that. Case in point, a mistrial in Trovata vs. Forever21 case. And for good reason, anything that is being designed, practically anything, has already been designed, sewn and sold in various decades. Doesn’t anyone see the 60s influence in Kane’s dress? And if not, go peruse old Vogues/Bazaars and you will see HIS inspiration in abundance. And as far as the Topshop design team goes, I’m sure at some point some exec came to them and said “Look,love, what Kane is doing down the hallway, now go make your own version”. I know, because I deal with this every day of my design life. Enough already with these “gotcha” posts, fashion industry employs A LOT of people, and thank God for the knock-off houses, they put food on some of those people’s tables. Because as far as RTW companies go-they pay in cookies to their poor assistants. And that’s just the 7th ave dirty little secret.
Omg darling Rashface (Austin Samuel’s nickname is sticking), I bought this:
http://www.lazyoaf.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=86_87&products_id=1351
Just last week. Brings a smile to my face every time I wear it.
Aww you guys hahahha
maybe kane is thinking that if topshop doesn’t sell enough of this ‘inspired by’ dress, he won’t have anyone to pay for his next runway show or his design studio or all the other costs involved in the business….so quickly everyone, go buy it. in a way, you are supporting kane. :P
also, its not exactly the same is it? its definitely an inspired by piece that doesn’t look quite as good. but then you get what you pay for (probably crappier stitching. material, details)
wow i cant believe how many comments this got.
after being in retail for 28 years and travelling to all the shows in europe and US i would like to say the biggest problem we now have is the speed with which things are reinterpreted. when i started my business in the 80′s if someone wanted to copy something they had to wait for it to come into store and buy the sample. now they just click on any number of sights and get the shows immediately. my customers even ring our store the day after a collection to request something from the show. you even see the knockoffs in store before the original.
customers are getting tired of seeing copies everywhere and even though some of the other comments seem to feel that this is okay, it isnt. it is very insulting and makes it hard for the designers who are doing all the hard work experimenting with fabric, cut, colors etc to make profits. that is not fair. even though you cannot copyright you should be able to. these copiers suck the creativity and quality out of the industry. they need to be stopped. keep up your good work and the more evidence you can find the better.